Showdown before the raid: FBI agents and prosecutors argued over Trump

Matt Dillon said:
Clinton and Bush weren't presidents anymore, either; Green snail trail.
Click to expand...

And?



They didn't claim the documents were theirs


They had a couple of documents and handed them over


Trump is the only one who tried to steal Hundereds of secret documents
 
evince said:
And?



They didn't claim the documents were theirs


They had a couple of documents and handed them over


Trump is the only one who tried to steal Hundereds of secret documents
Click to expand...

No. No sense in posting what I have because it's beyond your comprehension.

Oh fuck it:

https://sgp.fas.org/bush/eoamend.html

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Presidents can keep just about whatever they want. No "National Archives" has more power than presidents. :nono:
 
Matt Dillon said:
Yeah, no. Never heard of the Clinton sock drawer tapes?

Let's face facts here: You're an ignorant partisan shill, don't know a damn thing about all the precedents before this incident, and are not any kind of lawyer at all.
Click to expand...

So you got nothing to back up your Trumpper lies, nothing new!


In the sock drawer case Judge Jackson’s ruling explicitly states that the Presidential Records Act distinguishes presidential records from ‘personal records,’ defined as documents that are ‘purely private or nonpublic character.
 
Jarod said:
So you got nothing to back up your Trumpper lies, nothing new!


In the sock drawer case Judge Jackson’s ruling explicitly states that the Presidential Records Act distinguishes presidential records from ‘personal records,’ defined as documents that are ‘purely private or nonpublic character.
Click to expand...

You do know I linked to it earlier in this thread, right? What's considered personal is quite broad. Basically it's whatever the president says it is.

"The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”"

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Suck on that, Mr. "lawyer".

I guarantee them FBI agents didn't do their due diligence and research that, or if they did, they completely ignored it which is bonkers.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
Clinton nor Bush refused a request by the Justice Department to turn over presidential documents. Neither ignored a court subpoena.
Click to expand...

The demand came from the National Archives, dumbass, who does not have the authority to make such demands of a president; Who then squealed like a pig to the justice department which appears to have gone full rogue.
 
Last edited:
Matt Dillon said:
Obviously they forgot to study case law before embarking on that violation of the 4th amendment fiasco.
Click to expand...

All they needed was a warrant and the evidence or probable cause that a crime had been committed!

It seems you don't know what the FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT again!

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
All they needed was a warrant and the evidence or probable cause that a crime had been committed!

It seems you don't know what the FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT again!

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Click to expand...

What crime, you vapid fucktard? I'm about to smack the water out your mudpuddle.

That was a very unreasonable search and seizure and a blight on the FBI's credibility and reputation.
 
Last edited:
Matt Dillon said:
You do know I linked to it earlier in this thread, right? What's considered personal is quite broad. Basically it's whatever the president says it is.

"The Court notes at the outset that there is broad language in Armstrong I stating that the
PRA accords the President “virtually complete control” over his records during his time in
office. 924 F.2d at 290. In particular, the court stated that the President enjoys unconstrained
authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: “[a]lthough the President must
notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the
authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.”"

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1834-13

Suck on that, Mr. "lawyer".

I guarantee them FBI agents didn't do their due diligence and research that, or if they did, they completely ignored it which is bonkers.
Click to expand...

“During his time in office”… not after his time has expired.
 
Matt Dillon said:
The demand came from the National Archives, dumbass, who does not have the authority to make such demands of a president; Who then squealed like a pig to the justice department which appears to have gone full rogue.
Click to expand...

Archives asked
justice asked
The court then subpoenaed

Trump ignored all three.
 
Matt Dillon said:
So many, you can't mention 1. :rolleyes:

Tard.
Click to expand...

Hey Stupid!

The crime of stealing Government documents that do not belong to you. FOR ONE!

This is simple to understand by most Americans above the 3rd grade, but for you mentally challenged TRUMPTARDS, we will excuse your ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top